-Caveat Lector-
The New [Pseudo] Patriotism
By Steven Yates
Patriotism is suddenly in vogue. American flags are everywhere - on clothing,
automobiles, storefronts, billboard advertisements, and so on. I believe I have seen
more American flags in the past two months than in the previous two years. The same
goes for the phrases 'United We Stand' and 'God Bless America.' They are everywhere.
I've found myself spending time putting my finger on what is troublesome about the new
patriotism. It is superficial. From somewhere I recall hearing a sarcastic, 'Instant
patriotism. Add water and stir.' Real patriotism is not simply worn on your lapel, or
flown from your car. Real patriotism costs something.
But that isn't it. Many things in life are superficial. That doesn't necessarily make
them bad. More to the point is that the new patriots seem to applaud the federal
powergrab of the past two months. At least, the new patriotism has no serious problems
with it. After all, we're at war now, it says. It suggests we can no longer afford the
convenience of a distinction between society and government, or between patriotism
understood as loyalty to the ideals under which the country was founded and blind
submission to the yahoos currently running it. So relatively few are complaining that
the much-touted Patriot Act of 2001 which Bush the Younger just signed has all the
ingredients for setting up a police state in America in the name of 'homeland
security.' The entire campaign has the full backing of the dominant media, where you
will find statements like, "Big government is back, and high time, too." Or: "The time
has come to end the government-bashing of the past 20 years." [The tru
th, of course, is that the size and scope of the federal government increased over the
past 20 years - especially during the 1990s.]
So let's revisit real patriotism - that kind that was here all along, but wasn't in
vogue because it didn't kowtow to whatever came out of Washington, D.C. Real
patriotism, alluded to already, is loyalty to your country understood as loyalty to
the set of ideals under which it was founded. In our case, this means loyalty to the
ideas of God-given rights that inhere in individuals, not in groups. It means
responsibilities derived from a morality with a transcendent source, not 'values' made
up by human beings that differ from culture to culture [relativism,] or deduced in
some mysterious way from human nature. It means commitment to the idea that government
may be a necessary evil, given sinful man, but as the product of men, government
should be limited to a few and carefully specified functions. That was the purpose of
the U.S. Constitution, to describe the structure and functions of the various branches
of government, and [after the struggle between the so-called federalists and
so-called anti-federalists] to enumerate rights. And it is important that the portion
of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights enumerates rights; it does not create
them out of thin air. It is one of the more interesting delusions of modernity that it
is possible for human beings, especially those in government, to create rights.
Following these provisions consistently means maintaining a society committed to the
rule of law, not rule by political elites or gangs of criminals [sometimes they are
the same thing.]
Finally, it should go without saying that no political leader loyal to the
Constitution is going to embark on an agenda which any thinking person must soon
realize cannot be accomplished without setting up a global empire. The desire to
retaliate against the thugs who destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the
Pentagon is quite understandable. I understand, 'Let's roll.' However, an undeclared
'war' to eradicate all the bullies, tyrants, sociopaths and misfits out there is not
the answer. Assuming that the al Qaeda network is responsible for what happened on
September 11, we are talking about a highly decentralized entity that spans many
countries, and possibly connects to other such entities not taking marching orders
from Osama bin Laden. No one, of course, knows for sure. But the limited 'successes'
in Afghanistan are already being cited as a possible pretext to a new invasion of Iraq
- even though I am aware of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to the September 11
at
tacks. It could be a pretext to an invasion of still more nations. Talk about a recipe
for generating still more hatred of the 'Great Satan' in the Muslim world!
The question has been asked before: how would we even know when we defeated this
network? A cessation of activities might just mean that its remaining leaders have
gone underground until the heat died down. Bush Jr.'s Marines might get bin Laden
before the year is out. My guess: they'll 'accidentally' shoot him rather than bring
him to the U.S. for what would quickly turn into the biggest media circus since the
O.J. Simps
